The invention relates to a comparator, a comparison method utilised therein and a data network arrangement for implementing the comparison of the properties of a comparison target utilising a user's data processing device and a graphic comparison tool in the comparator. The invention also relates to a computer program to be utilised in the comparator.
The comparing of two or more comparison targets can be implemented by utilising a data network. The comparison target may for example be a product, a service, a travel destination, a person etc. The purpose of the comparison is to produce a final result, on the basis of which a target can be presented to a person performing the comparison from several possible comparison targets, which target best corresponds to the needs and desires of the person performing the comparison with regards to the properties used in the comparison, which describe the comparison target.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,693,743 presents a data collection and presentation method functioning in a data network, where a stepless two-dimensional data collection and presentation manner is utilised for collecting opinions and presenting the results of the inquiry. The presented manner is known as a fourfold model. In the method according to the publication the operation is based on collecting evaluation data with the aid of a data network from persons selected by the person administrating the inquiry, the so-called inquiry creator, in two or more dimensions. The evaluation results of each evaluator are normalised per respondent, so that the average of the evaluation points of the evaluator entered into the fourfold is set in the origin and the dispersion (standard deviation or some other value describing dispersion) in a set standard value for each person performing the evaluation. With the described method the given responses can be scaled so that the evaluator's order of importance of different properties of the evaluation target are detected from the inquiry results, even if the responses given by some evaluator of the properties being evaluated were to be concentrated close together. Additionally the order of importance given to the properties by a single evaluator can be scaled with the responses given by other participants in the inquiry. The scaled result can also be called a normalised result.
The two-dimensional inquiry frame, the fourfold, has been used also in a so-called comparator, which can be used for example via the Internet. Reference responses given by a so-called reference user have been entered into the comparator, which reference responses illustrate as realistically as possible certain selected properties of the comparison target. The actual user of the comparator responds to the same questions as the reference user, whereby a conclusion can be made with the aid of the inquiry regarding how congruent the opinion of the actual user and the opinion of the reference user are regarding the evaluated properties of a certain evaluation target.
One application of the comparator is a so-called election machine, by using which a private person can compare his own opinions against the opinions of the persons nominated in the election.
The comparator can comprise several different two-dimensional question fourfolds and/or one-dimensional evaluation lines.
A single question fourfold of the comparator consists of two properties to be examined, which are set perpendicularly against each other in the displayed fourfold. With the aid of the question fourfold the properties to be compared are in some way related to each other. Each property is in the question fourfold described for example with numerical values 0-100%. Any values can naturally be selected as the numerical values of the end points, for example −10 and +10. Alternatively the properties to be compared can be described with word pairs, e.g. disagreeagree, badgood or unimportantimportant.
In the examples in FIGS. 1a-1c the numerical value 0% of the horizontal axis of the fourfolds is situated in the left edge of the question fourfold and the numerical value 100% in the right edge of the question fourfold. Correspondingly the numerical value 0% of the vertical axis of the question fourfold is situated in the lower edge of the question fourfold and the numerical value 100% in the top edge of the question fourfold. What corresponds to a numerical value of 0% or 100% for each property is based on the definition made by the creator of the comparison procedure.
A person using the two-dimensional comparator, either a reference user of an actual user, sees two properties of the comparison target, one on the horizontal axis and one on the vertical axis. Generally the ends of the axes of the question fourfold describe opposite pairs of the same property. By using the two opposite pairs included in the question fourfold the comparator user can give his own evaluation of both examined properties by placing one evaluation point in a selected spot in the fourfold.
In addition to the two-dimensional fourfold the comparator can advantageously utilise also a one-dimensional evaluation line. The ends of the evaluation line in some way represent opposite pairs of the compared property.
FIG. 1a shows a principled model of a question fourfold 1 to be utilised in the comparator. The user of the question fourfold steplessly moves a response cursor 2 to a desired spot in the question fourfold 1. This stepless aiming possibility has been illustrated with four arrows pointing out from the cursor 2. When the response cursor 2 is according to the user in a spot, which corresponds to his opinion or evaluation with regards to the two properties shown in the fourfold, the user locks the response cursor 2 with a function related to the data processing device he uses.
FIGS. 1b and 1c show examples of the above-mentioned comparator and possible comparison fourfolds 7a therein. In FIG. 1b the evaluation of the user is locked in spot 4 in the comparison fourfold 7a. This evaluation can be graphically compared to a corresponding evaluation 3 given by the reference user of the examined property. In the example in FIG. 1b the evaluations by the user and the reference user of the evaluated property are in every way almost opposite.
FIG. 1c shows a situation, where the users opinion 5 and the reference user's opinion 3 are congruent in one dimension (on the horizontal axis). In relation to the second axis (the vertical axis) there is a clear difference in the opinions. The graphic presentation according to the comparison fourfold 7a can illustratively present the comparison results of the inquired properties.
FIG. 1d shows a one-dimensional evaluation line 8 and an opinion/evaluation 6 presented by a user about an evaluation statement presented in connection with some property. In the example in FIG. 1d the left end of the line illustrates a situation, where the user agrees with the presented statement regarding an examined property. The right end of FIG. 1d illustrates a situation, where the user completely disagrees with the presented statement. The corresponding statement is also presented to the reference user/users of the comparator. By proceeding thus it is possible to calculate an accuracy percentage between the user and different reference users.
In the above-described examples the congruency between the reference user's and the actual user's evaluation can be expressed mathematically also with the following expression:
                              A          =                                    [                              1                -                                                      |                                                                  X                        K                                            -                                              X                        E                                                              |                                    N                                            ]                        *            100                          ,                            (        1        )            in which:                N is an integer number, with which the axis of the question fourfold 1 (or the evaluation line 8) is divided into equally large parts (N is advantageously a number between 100 and 1000)        XK is the value of the user's response point between 0 and N        XE is the value of the reference user's response point between 0 and N and        A is the congruency of the reference user's and respondent's points expressed as an accuracy percentage for one axis of the question fourfold or evaluation line.        
The total percentage S of correlation of the reference user's and actual user's responses is obtained with the equation:
                              S          =                                    ∑                              j                =                1                            n                        ⁢                                                  ⁢                                          A                j                            n                                      ,                            (        2        )            in which:                S is the congruency percentage of all the responses,        Aj is the congruency of axis j as an accuracy percentage and        n is the total number of axes included in the utilised fourfolds and/or evaluation lines.        
The comparator uses the equations (1) and (2) to calculate the congruency of evaluations given by the user and reference user regarding a certain comparison target. If necessary, the comparator calculates a corresponding congruency percentage illustrating the congruency for all comparison targets selected by the user.